R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER versus RAJMANI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 09-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 734 : 2025 INSC 478
R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs. and Another 
v. 
Rajmani and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2025)
09 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to 
the trial Court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite the 
existence of concurrent findings, when section 100 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 empowered the High Court to decide the matter.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Limitation Act, 1963 – 
s.3 and Art.59 – Both the trial Court and the First Appellate 
Court, after detailed analysis of the oral and documentary 
evidence let-in by the parties, categorically held that the suit 
was hopelessly barred by limitation – However, the High Court 
observed that both the Courts failed to frame any issue in 
respect of the limitation – Thereafter, the High Court remanded 
the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect 
to the issue of limitation – Correctness:
Held: Judgment of High Court unsustainable – U/s.100 CPC, the 
High Court possesses the authority to entertain second appeals 
strictly on substantial questions of law – Upon admitting such an 
appeal, the High Court is empowered to frame substantial questions 
and adjudicate them directly, without the necessity of remanding the 
matter to the trial court – This approach ensures judicial efficiency 
and prevents unnecessary prolongation of litigation – In the instant 
case, without deciding the substantial question of law involved in 
the second appeal, the High Court only considered the additional 
substantial question of law, observing that both the Courts failed 
to frame any issue in respect of the limitation, though held that the 
suit was barred by limitation – The failure of the trial Court and the 
First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue, is not fatal to 
the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice 
to the parties – Further, the trial Court, in the performance of its 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
735
R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs. and Another v. Rajmani and Others
duty, mandated u/s.3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has taken up the 
question of limitation and upon perusal of the overall pleadings 
and evidence, has rightly decided the same – It is a general rule 
that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of 
the Courts below – In the present case, both the trial Court and 
the First Appellate Court, after detailed analysis of the oral and 
documentary evidence let-in by the parties, categorically held 
that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation – Respondent 
nos.1 to 3, have knowingly slept over their right to challenge the 
sale and allowed further rights to flow, cannot later question the 
sale of larger extent of share in an un-partitioned property – Any 
plausible reasons for delay not found – Limitation is a matter of 
statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier 
transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties – This 
principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where 
the delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite 
the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/Judgment Debtors 
in the execution proceedings – Furthermore, protection of bona 
fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any 
disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would 
create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the 
sanctity of court sale – Therefore, the High Court was not justified 
in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with 
respect to the issue of limitation; and that, the Courts below have 
rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and respondent 
nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief – Impugned judgment 
is set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing 
the suit, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, are restored. 
[Paras 12.1, 17, 22, 23]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Legal 
position – Discussed. [Para 12]
Framing of issues – Determination of the material point of 
disputes – Mixed question of facts and issues – Discussed. 
[Para 18]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Object of – Discussed. [Para 18]
Limitation – Mixed question of fact and law – No hard and 
fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as 
a mixed question of fac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.